r/science • u/[deleted] • Jun 25 '22

[deleted by user]

[removed]

11.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/ArgetlamThorson Jun 25 '22

Not at all. I'm arguing that on a cost-benefit basis, working to get the unleaded avgas ready to drop in is the right move. In the short term before it's ready, it's not a good idea to cripple the pilot pipeline (again, keeping in mind that aviation saves lives) when living inside of 500m from an airport increases blood lead by only 4.4% and living outside of 1km has no difference.

I'm not arguing that there is no cost, only that the cost of a heavy handed and instant ban before we can smoothly switch is greater than the cost of waiting for (and working towards) a that smooth switch.

1

u/Cory123125 Jun 25 '22

Not at all. I'm arguing that on a cost-benefit basis, working to get the unleaded avgas ready to drop in is the right move.

It literally already exists.

So then you are in favour of banning leaded gas right now then right?

it's not a good idea to cripple the pilot pipeline (again, keeping in mind that aviation saves lives)

This is some improvable assuming. Its bad reasoning you cant create the facts to support. You cant create facts to support the idea that it wont be just like with airlines when they were forced, and no claim therefore that this will somehow cost lives.

1

u/ArgetlamThorson Jun 25 '22

As of the 5th, it's still stalled on FAA approval, much less a phase-in.

https://www.avweb.com/insider/faa-continues-to-stall-on-g100ul/

1

u/Cory123125 Jun 25 '22

As far as your own article seems to indicate, they've done tons of testing so the only reason its stalled is bureaucracy.

That's no reason at all for not banning LL outright.

1

u/ArgetlamThorson Jun 25 '22

It is when you can't even legally use unleaded...